I have provided a link to a recent article in USA Today regarding cities installing red light cameras just to raise money.
When it's not about the money, it's about the money.
The revenue has always been the driving force.
It's up to the citizens to fire their politicians!
I would like to see citizens require that politicians implement features that would improve safety. Proper yellow timing and limiting rolling right turns of red to egregious violations only would be one way to do this.
By voting for referendums against Automated Traffic Enforcement - rather than, say, referendums requiring proper implementation of ATE - people are, in essence (since they really do not consider implications) voting for sending a message that it is OK to run red lights.
Yes - studies do show that rear-end collisions often increase at intersections with cameras, but those same studies show that lives are saved and, overall, there is a positive benefits to citizens.
"'However, some contracts potentially impose financial penalties on the city if traffic engineers extend the length of the yellow light at intersections, which would reduce the number of tickets the systems can issue,' the report says."
Which would also reduce the amount of infractions, but hey! We're talking safety here. And by safety, I mean profit.
In 2009, Chicago raised $58 million dollars with their red light cameras. It doesn't seem like safety is being improved, if that much revenue is being generated.
Chicago is planning on adding SPEED cameras to their already big supply of RED light cameras.
Show me the money cause we the politicians of Chicago don't know how to spend less than we bring in.
In NYC it is a $50 mail in ticket for blowing a red light, and over $100 dollars for parking at an expired meter. It's all about money. Keep your RLC camera file up to date...
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006 - 2013